There's a lot of information coming out about the future versions of Windows - and it's looking like Microsoft is listening to its users. First and foremost, it seems like the Metro interface will be disabled completely when Windows runs on traditional laptops and desktops; however, Metro applications will still run in windows on the desktop.

The Desktop/laptop SKU of Threshold will include, as previously rumored, the Mini-Start menu - a new version of the traditional Microsoft Start menu, an early concept of which Microsoft showed off at the company's Build developers conference in April. It also will include the ability to run Metro-Style/Windows Store apps in windows on the Desktop. Will it turn off completely the Metro-Style Start screen with its live-tile interface, as Neowin is reporting, and make the tiled Start Menu a toggleable option from the Mini Start menu? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Meanwhile, convertible devices will work pretty much like Windows 8.x does today, switching between the two modes. Microsoft will also do the inevitable: merge its phone and tablet operating system into one product.

The combined Phone/Tablet SKU of Threshold won't have a Desktop environment at all, but still will support apps running side by side, my sources are reconfirming. This "Threshold Mobile" SKU will work on ARM-based Windows Phones (not just Lumias), ARM-based Windows tablets and, I believe, Intel-Atom-based tablets.

These are all looking like some very decent changes, and something they should have done from the get-go. In fact - they should have never tried to shove Metro down desktop user's throats to begin with. They should have moved Windows Phone over to NT (which they did anyway), and scale that up to tablets.

I am, though, quite interested in what the Metro-on-desktop apologists are going to say now. For entertainment value, of course!

The reason MS have a virtual Monopoly is more related to the fractured nature of the Linux desktop, and the exorbitant prices Apple charge nowadays.

Thats a big part of it. I think probably a bigger reason is you look at the *typical* Windows user (and by typical, I DO NOT MEAN those Windows users who are reading this). They don't like computers, they don't like to learn anything new, and by definition, learning Metro is learning something new, this requires some effort that they would rather spend on something non-computer related.

In a sense, Microsoft doomed Metro back in 1995. They managed to convince the world that the Windows95 desktop is the only way to do computing, anything else is *different*, anything else is *scary*, and OMG, anything different is OMG, *incompatible* .

People bought into this gestalt, and the rest is history. As long as this mindset exists, the typical Windows user will NEVER accept anything that does not look like Windows95.

Of course there are Windows users who will question something, but unfortunately, they're number is probably not much more that Linux desktop users.

In a sense, Microsoft doomed Metro back in 1995. They managed to convince the world that the Windows95 desktop is the only way to do computing, anything else is *different*, anything else is *scary*, and OMG, anything different is OMG, *incompatible* .

They're probably used to Windows ME in particular - it's widely known that if you start ME up, you never stop.

The reason MS have a virtual Monopoly is more related to the fractured nature of the Linux desktop

What fractured nature? It's mostly Ubuntu and Linux Mint out there. Which are cousins anyway. The babbling about fragmentation is a cry from users of "hardcore" distros (like Arch or Slackware), who feel left out when some Linux software doesn't officially support their distro. But they are literally the 1% of the 1%. How are their problems representative of the problems the mainstream faces?

Ubuntu's problem is that's it's not compatible with itself. Same for Mint. Your proprietary app or driver may work in the current stable/LTS version, the next stable/LTS comes and it may or may not work. Investment jeopardized. And you can't stay in the old stable/LTS because new Linux apps assume you have the latest stable/LTS.

But this is an actual problem that can't be fixed (X.org and PulseAudio maintainers don't care, it's your fault for polluting your Linux installation with closed source), so Linux fans will never admit it's a problem.

Thats a big part of it. I think probably a bigger reason is you look at the *typical* Windows user (and by typical, I DO NOT MEAN those Windows users who are reading this). They don't like computers, they don't like to learn anything new, and by definition, learning Metro is learning something new, this requires some effort that they would rather spend on something non-computer related.

Those users had no problem learning Mac OS X during the Vista age, and don't have a problem moving from iPad to Android and vice versa.

If OS X managed to nab the percentage it nabbed during the Vista era -despite the overpriced hardware- and Desktop Linux didn't, then Desktop Linux has a problem.

And it's called backwards compatibility.

And the culture of Desktop Linux ensures it will stay a problem. The general idea is that "ruining backwards compatibility in favor of getting rid of broken approaches is good" and "if you need back compat because you pollute your linux with proprietary software, it's your fault anyway"

Proprietary drivers are intentionally hobbled because Linus prefers not having a fixed driver ABI. It's better for security, it's less development baggage, and it encourages OEMs to put their drivers in-tree or watch the community do it and leave them out of the loop. As for applications, bundle your dependencies or suffer the whims of the platform... just like on OS X or Windows. I'd say "or static link" but with the amount of (L)GPL stuff in the Linux desktop stack that won't work for proprietary applications anyways. Can't say that bothers me overmuch.

The reason MS have a virtual Monopoly is more related to the fractured nature of the Linux desktop, and the exorbitant prices Apple charge nowadays.

Oh right, because Linux and Apple failed to keep pace with Windows in the 90s, right?

Talk about over- and mis- simplifying a situation.

Windows/Microsoft are dominant because of extensive (and extensively documented*) illegal business practises that resulted in billions of dollars of fines, which were a drop in the ocean of the profits said business practises reaped. Once monopoly was achieved and the bank balance was bursting, how was any company going to be able to realistically compete?

Apple had to carve out their own niche market with a brand based on quality and style by focusing on a few strong products that appealed to its fan base.

As for the fractured nature of Linux, that's what happens when you drop tens of thousands of academic volunteers in a bucket each with their own brainchild and agenda. It has become better through the businesses that have emerged from the soup but you can't expect hundreds of businesses to evolve a single cohesive product between them.

Despite this diverse community behind it, Linux has been stable in a way Windows admins could only dream of and hence Linux has always been strong on the server market despite intense lobbying and the investment of billions by Microsoft.

You should read a little more before dismissing open source. It is a train that even the almighty Microsoft can not stop.

The reason MS have a virtual Monopoly is more related to the fractured nature of the Linux desktop, and the exorbitant prices Apple charge nowadays.

One of those could really have capitalised on the dissatisfaction with Win8, my guess is it may now be too late.

Given the growth of macs relative to the PC industry and it's pretty clear they have capitalized. Of course the nature of a premium product is that it will never take over the mass market.
And Linux, well let's just say that at least windows 8 still works, even if the UI is a mess.